Elsewhere in this issue is a description of a multi-player Napoleonic game in which three units were defined as a brigade, and instead of tracking each individual unit in terms of its losses, the entire brigade’s losses were recorded. Each brigade started out with a certain number of Capability Points (CP), and when the total CP of the brigade reached zero, all three units within the brigade were removed from the table-top.
I decided to apply the CL concept to the renaissance era… this time, in a solo game. Since I was going solo, I made up a movement activation deck whose cards told me which units were to move. In this renaissance system, I defined a division as 3 or 4 units, and it was the division whose CL points had to be recorded.
Prince Walakonis was again fighting for his homeland, Lithuania, and under Walakonis’ command were the 4 infantry divisions of Lord Hurst, Count Zitti, Count Oregano, and one cavalry division under the Graf Von Schlitz. Each infantry division had one missile unit, either archers or crossbows or arquebusiers.
Opposing Walakonis were an equal number of divisions under Lord Orfo.
Each side had its movement activation deck, which consisted of 2 cards for each division commander (for this battle, this was 8 cards), plus one card for administrative purposes, a total of 9 cards in all. The basic sequence consisted of
- a. One side would randomly pick a division card, move the units within the division
b. The opposing side was permitted to react with its firing troops by expending a number of Reaction Points
c. Resolve combat if any moving units had contacted enemy troops
d. Draw a card from a Fire Deck. Here, the missile units of each division were listed, and any missile units so listed, could fire away. If missile units on opposite sides were listed, they would fire simultaneously.
e. The opposing side then drew its activation card, and the sequence continued.
As might be imagined, with different divisions listed on each activation deck card, the sequence turned out to be “lurchy” as first one division advanced and then, another division, but for solo gaming purposes, it was fine.
I diced for the Capability Level (CL) of each commander and his division, and the results were either 50, 55, or 60. In the Napoleonic battle, I noted that the 10-point range (from 50 to 60) proved rather significant, and the same proved to be the case here. A difference of 10 points between divisions might not seem that important, but as the divisions took losses, the more wimpy commanders (those that started with 50 CL) went down to defeat quite rapidly.
Fortunately for Prince Walakonis, none of his 4 commanders had a CL of 50. The cavalry commander of the opposition, the Duke of Medina, did have 50 CL ,and the Duke and his entire division expired on the third bound.
Units
There were several types of units in the battle, and the hand-to-hand combat chart hoped to account for the differences in capability.
First of all, the particular vulnerability of each type of unit to an opposing unit had to be listed. And so, each lead unit immediately recorded a loss of 5 CLs if any of the following situations existed:
- a. Cavalry vs any infantry but pike
b. Pike vs cavalry
c. Sw-&-buckler vs pike or missiles
d. Pike vs any missiles
Then each lead could attempt to bring in one support unit (70 percent chance), which, if successful, gave it (the lead unit) an additional strike at the opponent. The, the lead units referred to the combat chart a number of times. The attacking unit diced first, and then the sides alternate. The number of times the units would strike was taken from the following table:
- 1 time For the unit itself
1 time If support present
1 time If opposing unit caught in flank or rear
1 time If unit under cover or uphill
1 time If unit has more stands than opponent
1 time If event is tabulated in the above vulnerability listing
| DICE | EFFECT ON | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| LEAD UNIT | SUPPORT | ||
| Loss | Morale Test | Loss | |
| 01-20 | 5 CL | Yes, modifier of -10, if fail, lose add’l 3 CL | If lead fails, fall back in column |
| 21-40 | 4 CL | Yes, modifier of -5, if fail lose add’l 3 CL | If lead fails, fall back in column |
| 41-60 | 4 CL | Yes, if fail, lose add’l 3 CL | If lead fails, fall back in column |
| 61-80 | 5 CL | No | No Effect |
| 81-90 | 4 CL | No | No Effect |
| 91-100 | 3 CL | No | No Effect |
If, for example, a 5-stand cavalry unit smashed into a 4-stand missile unit, and neither was able to bring in a support unit, the cavalry would toss on the chart 4 times… once for the unit itself, once because it had more stands, and once because it was listed in the vulnerability table. In contrast, the missile unit would toss dice on the combat chart only once.
Low dice tosses on the above table were “good”… if the dice were 60 or below, the opposing unit would have to take a morale test, and if it failed, it would fall back, and the melee would be ended.
I mentioned before that the Duke of Medina’s cavalry met a swift end… his horsemen found themselves impaled on a couple of enemy pike units, and losses mounted rapidly. As noted in the vulnerability listing, the cavalry immediately lost 5 CL, and then the multiple tosses on the chart of the opposing pike took off additional chunks of 4, or 5 CL.
The morale test referred to in the combat chart meant taking a base of 30, and adding it to the unit’s current CL total to find the morale level. Failure (a percentage dice toss above this level) meant that the unit fell back, and lost another 3 CL.
The firing chart resembled the combat chart. There were two basic additions to the listed chart losses
- a. Increase CL loss by 1 for every firing stand in excess of 3. Some missile units had 3 stands, others as many as 5.
b. If crossbow or arquebus unit firing, increase CL loss on the chart by 1 This accounted for the greater fire power of these weapons as compared to bows.
| DICE | TARGET DISPOSITION & CL LOSS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| In Open | In Cover | Morale Test | |
| 01-20 | 1 | 1 | Yes, Modifier of -10 |
| 21-40 | 2 | 1 | Yes, Modifier of -5 |
| 41-60 | 3 | 2 | Yes |
| 61-70 | 3 | 2 | No |
| 71-80 | 2 | 1 | No |
| 81-90 | 1 | 1 | No |
| 91-100 | 1 | 1 | Deploy and return fire |
As he battle progressed, constant reference to the fire and combat charts soon reduced about half the divisions on both sides so that their CL factors were in the 20’s. The morale level of these divisions, computed as the base of 30 plus the existing CL, was therefore down in the 50’s and more and more units kept failing and falling back and recording additional losses.
Each division commander had a reserve of points which he could contribute to his units, but these ran out quickly. For example, Lord Hurst and Count Zitti, both Prince Walakonis’ commanders, continually tossing in points to help out their troops, had their reserve run out when their CL factors were fairly low. Lord Hurst’s reserve, in particular, reached zero when his CL was down to 13. This meant that if one of Lord Hurst’s units had to take a morale test, its morale level would be grand total of 30 plus 13, or 43… almost a certain guaranty of failure.
But Lord Hurst was saved from having to undergo this embarrassing event… Prince Walkonis’ opposition folded up, for the simple reason that, not only had the opposing commanders’ reserves run out, but the CL factors of their divisions went to zero.
Only one division remained on the field to challenge the Prince… this was Don Corleone, whose pikes had whipped the Prince’s cavalry several times, suffering few losses. Don Corleone still possessed a CL of 41 and a reserve of 36 points, a formidable fellow.
But Don Corleone still faced three of the Prince’s divisions, which although weak, were sure to beat him into the ground.
And so, I, as resident umpire and solo performer, declared the battle to be a great victory for Prince Walakonis… “Go home, Don Corleone!”, I said… and the church bells throughout Lithuania rang load and clear to celebrate the Prince’s victory.
As I went through the procedures during the bounds, I changed several ploys to meet unexpected, changing situations. For example, If, when a division card was drawn, a unit contacted an enemy unit (which is, essentially, a “gotcha”) , I permitted an out-of-sequence fire by the defending side if he had Reaction Points to expend.
Back to PW Review August 2001 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2001 Wally Simon
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com